Tallness Kills

Via Facebook:

…research has shown that cross country skiers are an average 6 inches shorter than basketball players, and that they tend to live seven years longer. Centenarian Japanese people are even an average 4 inches shorter than those who reach 75, Slate reported.

Height is attributed to a bevy of different complications, the most notable of which is cancer. A recent study from the Karolinska Institute and the University of Stockholm showed that height is an immutable risk factor for cancer. After looking at data for 5.5 million men and women living in Sweden between 1938 and 1991, researchers found that for every four-inch bump in height, overall cancer risk rose 18 percent in women and 11 percent in men. Meanwhile, a similar study conducted by researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that tall postmenopausal women have a 13 percent higher cancer risk compared to their shorter counterparts.

Being taller is ideal in many Western cultures, especially for men. But most people don’t realize that our height also affects the number of cells in our bodies, as well as the size of our organs. And this can have a tremendous effect on our health; having more cells increases a person’s chances of receiving a cancer diagnosis. The case against having larger organs continues — a larger heart, also known as cardiomegaly, is a condition that can lead to various complications, including heart failure, blood clots, and sudden death. Taller people also face a higher chance of respiratory illness, possibly because their lungs aren’t able to function as efficiently. ..

I guess we’ll just have to denormalise and demonise tall people, and make them stand outside.

And if being tall doesn’t kill you, here are all the likely causes of death:

graphofcauses

It must be either out of date or the work of Tobacco Front Groups. because smoking  isn’t mentioned at all as a cause of death.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Tallness Kills

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Might be Frank because if this:

    Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

  2. Lepercolonist says:

    According to health nuts, tall people must be taxed at a 50% premium for health insurance as smokers are in Obamacare ?

  3. garyk30 says:

    …research has shown that cross country skiers are an average 6 inches shorter than basketball players, and that they tend to live seven years longer.

    Well DUH, I am shocked, just shocked that basketball players tend to be taller!

    Why not examine the life spans of tall skiers vs short skiers and the same for basketball players?

    Voodoo Science is what is happening here.

    • garyk30 says:

      height is an immutable risk factor for cancer. After looking at data for 5.5 million men and women living in Sweden between 1938 and 1991, researchers found that for every four-inch bump in height, overall cancer risk rose 18 percent in women and 11 percent in men.

      Relative Risks of 1.11 and 1.18.
      Since 1 is 90 percent of 1.11 and 85 percent of 1.18, the probability that a bump in height was the ’cause’ of cancers is small.

      0.11 is only about 10 percent of 1.11; thus, there is only a 10 percent probability that the bump in height was the ’cause’ of the cancers.

      A Relative Risk of 2 implies a 50 percent probility and that is not enough to imply causality.

      After all, only in Voodoo Science is causality decided by a coin flip.

  4. nisakiman says:

    That’s an interesting chart, Frank.

    It is notable that when you look at the age range 50 – 75 for white people, and compare male and female; for diseases of the circulatory system (which I would assume mostly comprises of heart attacks), men have a considerably higher incidence, which is not surprising given the breadwinner aspect and the fact that men’s work tends to be both more physical and more stressful.

    However, when you look at respiratory diseases and cancer (which are both cited as being mostly caused by smoking), white females have a higher incidence of both than men in the same age range.

    Now given that male smoking prevalence is generally taken as being five times higher than female smoking prevalence, then according to the gospel of Tobacco Control the incidence of respiratory disease and cancer in men should accordingly be about five times higher in men than in women.

    But it’s not.

    Nor are circulatory diseases anywhere near five times higher either, for that matter.

    Food for thought…

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Amazing isn’t it. Charting via TC is one gimmick they have used for years just like the polling junk they pass off.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Here in Ky they used a chart showing cancer incidence rates and they claimed KY was way out there because we had the highest smoking rate. But the chart was totally misleading. They used a graph to show a lousy 8 more deaths spiked out at nearly 30 basis spots over the next highest which was only 8 below ky. Then when you took the actual state by state numbers Ky trended precisely with all the states pretty much as the rates all hovered at the 200 mark per anum. The funny parts is it didn’t matter if a state had more smokers or half as many the trend remained the same.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The ranking goes for all cancer deaths/mortality:

          Per 100,000 population CDC NUMBERS/ smoking rates from tobacco free kids

          Kentucky at 207 Adults in Kentucky who smoke* 29.0% (971,000)

          Miss. 200 Adults in Mississippi who smoke* 26.0% (579,300)

          West Virginia 196 Adults in West Virginia who smoke* 28.6% (420,500)

          Louisianna 196 Adults in Louisiana who smoke* 25.7% (888,300)

          Arkansas 193 Adults in Arkansas who smoke* 27.0% (601,400)

          Alabama 190 Adults in Alabama who smoke* 24.3% (893,100)

          Indiana 187 Adults in Indiana who smoke* 25.6% (1,259,300)

          Maine 186 Adults in Maine who smoke* 22.8% (241,400)

          Missouri 184 Adults in Missouri who smoke* 25.0% (1,149,600)

          Delaware 184 Adults in Delaware who smoke* 21.8% (153,100)

          South Carolina 182 Adults in South Carolina who smoke* 23.1% (831,200)

          Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

          Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

          Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

          AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

          http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

    • Cecily Collingridge says:

      Following on from your observations on sex differences…
      New research on fruit flies was published in Nature (by Bruno Hudry et al) on the 17th February – The sexual identity of adult intestinal stem cells controls organ size and plasticity

      An article on it says:
      ‘The organs in our body may have a sexual identity of their own, new research suggests. The idea that our organs could be “male” or “female” raises the possibility that women and men may need different treatments as a result. The findings could also shed light on why it is that some cancers are more common in women, and others in men.’

      http://csc.mrc.ac.uk/a-deeper-take-on-our-sexual-nature/

      • Some French bloke says:

        why it is that some cancers are more common in women, and others in men

        Outside of the fact that most cancers are more common in men than in women (in spite of women’s longer lifespans in developed countries), it’s arguable – e.g. from military records – that people born in the 1900s/1910s had overall smaller, rather than less, cells than those born a century later (diachronicity). OTOH, taller people living in the 2nd decade of the 21st century would have more cancer-prone cells as compared to their shorter counterparts (synchronicity). As simplistic as it may sound, this may turn out the less controversial of all the cancer theories that are floated about.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    The funny parts is it didn’t matter if a state had more smokers or half as many the trend remained the same.
    Kentucky at 207 Adults in Kentucky who smoke* 29.0% (971,000)

    Miss. 200 Adults in Mississippi who smoke* 26.0% (579,300)

    West Virginia 196 Adults in West Virginia who smoke* 28.6% (420,500)

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    A smoking ban in pub beer gardens? Stop persecuting smokers

    by Chris Snowdon – 13 August 2015 5:16pm

    It should now be clear to anyone who still needs confirmation that secondhand smoke was only ever the excuse, rather than the reason, for the 2007 smoking ban.

    Its real objective, indeed the objective of all anti-smoking policies, was to harass, stigmatise and inconvenience smokers.

    This is a system known as ‘denormalisation’ in the field of tobacco control and as ‘fat-shaming’ in the field of obesity. Since passive smoking was only ever a cover story, it should be no surprise that the smoke-free crusade has continued long after nonsmokers were given the whole of the country’s interior.

    Anti-smoking campaigners get annoyed when people accuse them of being prohibitionists. They don’t want smoking banned completely, they will protest, and in a way this is true. There are only two places they want smoking banned: indoors and outdoors. Apart from that, smokers can do whatever they want.

    It was in this spirit of tolerance and liberalism that the Royal Society for Public Health yesterday called for parks, beer gardens and other outdoor places to be turned into ‘smoking exclusion zones’. They made no claims about passive smoking and nonsmokers’ health to justify this quest for lebensraum, but they did describe smoking as an ‘abnormal activity’ that people shouldn’t engage in if another person might see them, ie. nearly anywhere.

    This is a profoundly worrying rationale. If you have a belief in anything approaching a free society, you will understand that it is not the job of government to decide what is normal, nor is it the job of the police to arrest those who deviate from the norm.

    With one in five people still smoking, it is debatable whether smokers are more ‘abnormal’ than any other minority, such as people who join anti-smoking groups, but even if they were, being a member of a harmless, if self-harming, minority does not justify state persecution.

    The Royal Society for Public Health is suggesting that unusual, unhealthy or minority pursuits should be criminalised in order to set a good example to others. They want people to be arrested, fined and possibly even imprisoned for being poor role models. In a liberal society, the only appropriate response can be made with two words or two fingers

    http://www.cityam.com/222276/smoking-ban-pub-beer-gardens-stop-persecuting-smokers?ITO=related-content

  7. garyk30 says:

    and that they tend to live seven years longer

    Lot of scary stuff about one thing or another causing people to live 5 or 10 years,or whatever,less than others and about dying 5 or 10 years sooner.

    Let’s say tallies live 5 years less than shorties and the average ages of death are 75 and 80.
    Nannies would lead you to believe that all shorties live 5 years longer than any tallies.

    Actually, shorties are only 25% more likelyto live to be over 80 than are tallies.

    1. First of all, the ages are the 50% age, half of shorties die before 80 years of age.
    2. 50% of tallies live to be older than 75 and about 40% live to be 80 or older.
    3. Thus, 5 out of 10 shorties live to be 80 or older and 4 out of 10 tallies do the same thing.
    5/10ths is only 25% greater than 4/10ths.
    4. Basically, 50% of the tallies live past the average of death for tallies and only about 60% of shorties live past the average of death for tallies.

    100 seems to be the normal maximum for people to live, darn few live longer.
    50% of tallies will die during the 25 years of 75 to 100.
    That is about 2% per year and the 5 years of 75 to age 80 would have 10% dying.
    That leaves 40% of the tallies dying after the age of 80.
    This compares to the 50% of the shorties that die after the age of 80.

    • garyk30 says:

      For a 10 year difference in ages of death. 75 years to 85 years.

      The shorties are only about 1/3rd more likely than tallies to live longer than 85 years.

      Never smokers are claimed to live 10 years longer than smokers; but, only have a 33% probability of doing so.

      • nisakiman says:

        Those 400,000 Smoking Victims Live Longer Than The Rest of Us!

        For years the anti-tobacco crusaders, from Drs. Koop and Kessler to President Clinton, have claimed that “cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable or premature deaths, causing 400,000 deaths a year, a number greater than auto accidents, homicide, suicide, and various other causes of death combined.”

        They have used this statement to brand tobacco public health enemy number 1, and to justify huge amounts of money, time, and attention to the war on smoking, while all but ignoring alcohol and drug abuse.

        Incredibly, analysis of the ages of the 400K supposed deaths computed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs) program shows that tobacco is not a major health threat at all – the supposed victims did not die early!

        THE SMOKING “VICTIMS” LIVED LONGER THAN THE REST OF US, BY ABOUT 2 YEARS – 71.9 vs. 70.
        OVER 70,000, or about 17%, DIED “PREMATURELY” AT AGES GREATER THAN 85.
        ONLY 1900, OR FEWER THAN O.5 % OF THE SMOKING “VICTIMS” DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35, WHILE 143.000, OR 8% OF THE REST OF US DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35

        If so many of the smoking victims are old, and so few young, and if, on the average, they live longer than the rest of us, how are their deaths “premature”? According to the technical definition used by SAMMEC, any “smoking related” death is considered premature. There is no upper age limit to the computation.

        http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm

      • prog says:

        So, basically, ii’s just a tall story

  8. garyk30 says:

    No smoking listing here either.

    http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender

    Chart ranks total deaths for the top 50 causes by age and gender. Rank is determined by official CDC final death total and certain causes such as types of heart disease and cancer are split out for age adjusted death rate rankings to give you an expanded view of what actually takes place. For this reason they will not always match rankings for top 15 causes for age adjusted death rates which use a different combination of ICD-10 Codes.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s